Crows Age Profile

[Vader]

Adelaide's senior list has a very interesting profile..

At present (as at 14/12/2005), we have the following:
18 years old: 4
19: 6
20: 1
21: 2
22: 6
23: 3
24: 1
25: 2
26: 4
27: 2
28: 3
29: 3
30: 1
31: 1
32: 1

** Apologies, would have put these in a proper table if I could work out how to do it on BF. Even better would have been a graph.

** These figures include players taken in the recent ND & PSDs, but does not include rookies.

The large number of teenagers is healthy - it reflects NCs emphasis on youth in the last two drafts. It's a marked difference from the time he took over as coach, when we had only ONE teenager on the list.

The lack of players aged 20/21 is a major concern. Of these three, two are recent draftees (Vince & Porplyzia). Only one player in this age group remains from the Gary Ayres era. A more savage condemnation of our drafting in 2002 & 2003 I cannot even contemplate! The only other player in this age group (Jericho) is probably playing for his career in 2006, and his delisting would make this almost a "missing generation".

We have a very large group currently aged 22, all of whom (barring perhaps Skippy) have cemented their place in our best 22. To be fair, Skippy was in our best 22 in 2005, but in 2006 I expect the "young turks" to go past him in the order of merit.

Of the twelve players aged 23-27, several are "dead wood" (Stevens, Massie) and NONE show any leadership potential (Johncock may be an exception). To all intents & purposes, this lot might as well be another "missing generation".

Also of concern is the fact that we have nine players aged 28+, three of whom have already celebrated their 30th birthdays. I would consider any list with more than 3x to be unhealthily "top heavy" - something the AFC are going to have to manage very carefully in the next few years.

I'm very concerned for the future of the AFC. The list is top-heavy, and there's not a lot of inspiration from the players behind them. Very soon, a heavy weight is going to descend upon the shoulders of those currently aged 22 & 18/19. I hope they're ready and able to cope with it.

 

[jo172]

There's a graph!

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I'm very concerned for the future of the AFC. The list is top-heavy, and there's not a lot of inspiration from the players behind them. Very soon, a heavy weight is going to descend upon the shoulders of those currently aged 22 & 18/19. I hope they're ready and able to cope with it.

Fact : those numbers mean nothing - we'll delist 10 players next season and only draft players 20 -21 to get your number balance right

Really they mean absolutely nothing.

B4 last seaon there was a large % on this forum predicting a min of 3 years where the Crows would be close to the bottom of the table so bad was our list.

let me tell you the diference between top and bottom in this comp is one good draft year, minimal injuries, a bit of luck with the rookies youv'e drafted AND despit what peple have said " A Slice Of Luck"

 

[Damp Squarie]

I dunno WW; having 12 players 19 and 22 has future written all over it even if we lose 4.

They cant all be 25 - 26

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I dunno WW; having 12 players 19 and 22 has future written all over it even if we lose 4.

They cant all be 25 - 26

Correct, in fact you need a spread - We have some quality youngsters 2003 hurt us as Watts, Krueger have gone and Hudson was 25 so under normal circusmstances our list would show more 20/21 year olds.

Next year supposedly a strong draft - I'm confident another good draft and with what we have already Adelaide will continue to be a regular finals partcipant.

Certainly no gloom required

 

[Damp Squarie]

The other end of the ledger is not a concern to me either.

Has any one factored in the games missed due to injury?
i.e.Goodys one that missed a year...nearly.

 

[bigman]

Anyone worked out the average age.

 

[Crowz Gal]

23.63....I think

 

[ok.crows]

Here is a quick trial for people to have a look at.

And they say Linux isn't a desktop system!

Cool.

 

[Crowz Gal]

WOW Score....I got the average right!!!!!!!
And I did it by hand on the old calculator ...its a lot harder then u think

 

[ok.crows]

WOW Score....I got the average right!!!!!!!
And I did it by hand on the old calculator ...its a lot harder then u think

Try this instead of a calculator.

It might get you a bit further.

http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/quantian.html

 

[Crowz Gal]

Try this instead of a calculator.

It might get you a bit further.

http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/quantian.html

Thanks....but I only use it for adding, multiplying, logarithms(?) Not quantum physics!!! And aeronautical engineering calculations

 

[ok.crows]

Thanks....but I only use it for adding, multiplying, logarithms(?) Not quantum physics!!! And aeronautical engineering calculations

Still, it isn't bad for $5.50.

http://www.lankum.com/store/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=232

A complete Operating System with full-feature Office suite (compatible with MS Office files) and also comes with > 500MBytes of high-powered scientiific and mathematical analysis software for $5.50 Australian - and it all comes on a CD which you don't have to install (and which has no registration or anything) and which won't upset your PC if it already has Windows.

A 4-function calculator is probably the more expensive option here.

 

[Crowz Gal]

Still, it isn't bad for $5.50.

http://www.lankum.com/store/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=232

A complete Operating System with full-feature Office suite (compatible with MS Office files) and also comes with > 500MBytes of high-powered scientiific and mathematical analysis software for $5.50 Australian - and it all comes on a CD which you don't have to install (and which has no registration or anything) and which won't upset your PC if it already has Windows.

A 4-function calculator is probably the more expensive option here.

Your not wrong there. Mine isnt a graphics calculator but they are around the $200+ range. Ive just got the old scientific one I reckon it cost $20 bucks back in yr 8!!!

 

[splat868]

Adelaide's senior list has a very interesting profile..
Of the twelve players aged 23-27, several are "dead wood" (Stevens, Massie) and NONE show any leadership potential (Johncock may be an exception). To all intents & purposes, this lot might as well be another "missing generation".



even if these players dont shape up to be leadership material, id still prefer to have the likes of mattner, shirley, hentschel, mcgregor, johncock and even perrie on the list rather than have them missing.

 

[Tas]

Comparison with North is (it is number of plays and +/- compared to Crows):

17: 2 -2
18: 1 +3
19: 4 +2
20: 2 -1
21: 7 -5
22: 4 +2
23: 3 --
24: 5 -4
25: 1 +1
26: 3 +1
27: 3 -1
28: 2 +1
29: 1 +2
30: 0 +1
31: 0 +1
32: 2 -1

Our average age is 23.13 vs Crows 23.63, not a huge difference. I think most clubs will be pretty similar except those that have gone for pure youth.

I think the only real concern is your average is balanced due to a large group of 18-19 year olds and few more that are 28+ which are close to retirement. It is good the crows are adding in more fresh meat to balance things up a bit but there is probably a high mortality rate in the 18-19 bracket of players that are not good picks, there may be a bit of a void when in 2-3 years when the old guys retire if guys in that batch of 18-19s doesn't push through.

The numbers are a bit low in the 21-24 age bracket which will be the leadership group once the old farts retire. There are no short-term alarm bells but the Crows would be looking at the younger generation, some quality needs to come through over the next few years so a lean period does not follow the leadership group's retirement.

Overall things are about normal it seems.

 

[Vader]

I think the only real concern is your average is balanced due to a large group of 18-19 year olds and few more that are 28+ which are close to retirement. It is good the crows are adding in more fresh meat to balance things up a bit but there is probably a high mortality rate in the 18-19 bracket of players that are not good picks, there may be a bit of a void when in 2-3 years when the old guys retire if guys in that batch of 18-19s doesn't push through.

The numbers are a bit low in the 21-24 age bracket which will be the leadership group once the old farts retire. There are no short-term alarm bells but the Crows would be looking at the younger generation, some quality needs to come through over the next few years so a lean period does not follow the leadership group's retirement.

For a non-Crows supporter, I reckon that's an astounding and very fair summary of where our list is at. Congratulations.

 

[Vader]

Having stated what I consider to be the problems with Adelaide's age profile, here's what I reckon an IDEAL profile would look like. Of course, we live in the real world, and very few would achieve anything like the ideal.

I am basing my profile on the assumption that we have a list of 38 on the senior list, plus 2 on the veterans list. Not counting rookies. Ages are as they would be now - ie shortly post-draft.

18-21: This age group should average about 5 players in each year, give or take (could take 4 some years, 6 in others). IMHO about half the list should be aged 21 or under due to the high rate of failure.

22-23: Ideally, there would be 3 players in each of these years. For midfielders in particular, four years is enough to determine whether or not they're going to make it, and this is the point where they get culled if they're not up to scratch.

24-29: Two players per year. KPPs take longer to mature, so they are given 6 years to prove themselves (rather than mids who are given 4). From 24 onwards, numbers should remain fairly static as we're down to the few who have proven themselves capable.

30+: Ideally, only two players aged 30+. IMHO any more than three players in this age group makes the list top heavy and is asking for trouble. By this age injuries, delistings & retirements take their toll, thus ensuring that relatively few players reach this venerable old age.

So, how does this compare with Adelaide's profile?

As I pointed out, we have next to nobody aged 20-21, but I won't rehash that point any further.

My biggest criticism would be leveled at the players aged 25-26, who really haven't proven themselves. How on earth can Massie (25), Stevens (26) & (to a lesser extent) Bode (26) have survived this long? Questions must also be asked about Doughty (26) - though his stellar season of 2002 is probably responsible for his surviving that initial midfielder cull.

 

[splat868]

i think the question with these players, is whether it is worth replacing those that have done a servicable job(some have, some havent) with players you can draft at around the 60 to 70 pick mark.

remembering that most clubs play around 35 players in a year, you cant afford to lose too many players that can fill a role when needed through injuries and poor form of others.

there are a lot of young players on the list now that aren't really ready for afl football, when they are, some of these fringe players will find they may lose their spot on the list.

 

[Tas]

i think the question with these players, is whether it is worth replacing those that have done a servicable job(some have, some havent) with players you can draft at around the 60 to 70 pick mark.

remembering that most clubs play around 35 players in a year, you cant afford to lose too many players that can fill a role when needed through injuries and poor form of others.

there are a lot of young players on the list now that aren't really ready for afl football, when they are, some of these fringe players will find they may lose their spot on the list.

I think every team needs a good core of average servicable players. Salary cap wont permit an all star team. The question is do you sacrifice servicable players for young potential stars.

The problem with that is you need good young players to do that and that means good early picks. While you will get a few diamonds out of the coal, you have to burn through a lot of players to try and uncover good young players with late picks. You will risk creating weak chains in the side by replacing those 'known' quantity players with the unknown.

What makes Hawthorn and Carlton uncompetitive is not the lack of decent players, but the lack of stability and experience. They have no real servicable players left, they all made way for youth. They just have their older stars plus youth and that equates to a bottom four position.

They have too many players too young or inexperienced holding positions in an AFL side. You can get away with having a few young players in your side, but if you delve too deeply and depend on them in your senior team then the side will struggle for consistancy.

I think NC values consistancy way more than flair or sporadic brilliance thus I see a more important role in the AFC for consistant players that will perform all season. Adelaide achieved their success this year based on being rock solid and consistant. The average players contributed significantly to that success.

You should always look to replace the average players with better average players, but that is another issue.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

AOf the twelve players aged 23-27, several are "dead wood" (Stevens, Massie) and NONE show any leadership potential (Johncock may be an exception). To all intents & purposes, this lot might as well be another "missing generation".

This is our biggest concern, as there doesn't look like many from this group will replace our aging midfield. Hence we really need out 22 & under players to develop quickly before Roo & Co retire. Good analysis.